1. ' MUHAMMAD ZAHOORUL HAQ, J.--The petitioner has called in question the order passed by C.B.R. On 13-10-1986 regarding its inability to accede to the request of the petitioner for review of its order already passed.
2. ' The relevant facts are $hat for the period of 1973-74 the production capacity of the petitioner mills was assessed at 18,000 tons thereby the C.E.D. Was to be paid in the sum of Rs,50,40,000 but in view of additional flood relief surcharge being added to the same, duty was increased to Rs,1,49,40,000.
3. The petitioner is alleged to have suffered shortfall in the production and, therefore, it claimed under Rule 4 of the Excise Duty (Production Capacity of Sugar) Rules, 1972 abatement in the C.E.D. To the extent of Rs,61,07,181 and the grounds taken were:-
(1) General paucity of sugarcane in the area.
(2) Irregular supplies of available cane because of political agitation.
(3) Diversion of cane supplies to making.
(4) Damage to cane crop caused by the severe frost.
4. ' By order, dated 27-5-1985 the C.B.R. With the prior approval of the Federal Government allowed the petitioner an abatement for the year 1973-74 to the extent of Rs,35,80,000. The order was passed after hearing the petitioner and it was a reasoned order. The main reasons are reproduced hereunder:- "It has further been observed that during the year 1973-74 the Mills crushed sugar for 120 days as against 109 days in the preceding crushing reason. The Mills, however, failed to capitalise on the gain and instead of increasing their production further declined. As most of the other factors had remained the same a plausible explanation for this further shortfall was warranted which the applicants failed to put forth. It is; under these circumstances, felt that entire shortfall in production cannot be attributed to such factors as were beyond the control of the applicants. As such the abatement claim of Central Excise Duty of Rs,61,07,181 cannot be accepted in full."
5. ' The petitioner was not satisfied with the same and, therefore, after one year and four months of the said order passed by the C.B.R. Namely on 25-9-1986 the petitioner, repeated this application under Rule 4 and claimed that the balance of abatement of Rs,25,27;181 should be allowed. The same was rejected by the impugned-order.
6. ' Mr.Mahmood Iqbal took up the position that the Board was competent to allow the abatement and their not having done so was not legal. We do not see any force in the statement made by the learned counsel. It was for the petitioner to place their whole case before the C.B.R. Before passing of the order, dated 27-5-1985 and to seek the reduction. They had done so and claimed an abatemen of 61,00,000 but the C.B.R. Did not find justification for the same and allowed a partial abatement of Rs,38,000. If the petitioner was not satisfied with the reasons of the C.B.R., it could have sought relief in any other manner possible for him. However, it sought relief by a Review Application which was filed after one year and four months and there was hardly any new ground taken in the said Review Application. The C.B.R. Disallowed the same without hearing the petitioner and we have not been shown any justification which entitled the petitioner to be heard again in a matter which had already been considered in detail by the C.B.R. And had been adversely decided against the petitioner. Petitioner has no right of repeating an application. Moreoever, the very fast that the petitioner had waited for one year and four months in moving the C.B.R. For review is itself a factor which militates against the bona fides of the petitioner. Therefore, we dismiss this petition in limine.
7. We may also note that review is not a vested right. No one has a right of seeking a review unless so enforced by law. No such provision was shown to us.